Daniel Vukovich wrote:
>Well, in short, the intellectual and ethical commitment to socialism is
>what allows (or requires) me to *not* limit myself to *p*olitics (as
>opposed to *P*olitics). Or in other words I don t think struggles over any
>instance of lower case *p*olitics can be "won" or even addressed without
>winning and tackling them all. Which amounts to having or performing an
>upper case *P*olitics.
This exact issue was a source of *tremendous* tension in a seminar
I participated in recently. As I see it, the issue is constituted by a
number of rather
knotty problems. Despite the tenor of my last few posts, I am
very ambivalent about the macro-micro, (P/p)olitics issue. I've chosen to
err on the side of micropolitics, because it *seems* to me to have more
potential immediate effects, *seems* to generate less potential negative
unintended consequences, and *seems* to honor the ability of people to make
decisions for themselves. Moreover, it seems to me that Foucault's
ascending conception of power suggests that altering power relations at
multiple local sites, while more gradual, should have macro-structural
effects eventually.
Nevertheless, even though I've chosen the path of micropolitics, I can't get
rid of the feeling that I'm ignoring things I shouldn't be. Perhaps
it is this sense of "guilt" that prompts me to respond the way I do
sometimes when I engage someone such as yourself, who doesn't seem to mind
engaging in Politics.
{Confession over}
>>Hugs and kisses!
>>
>>deliciously liminal subjectivities
>Now *this* is funny! LOL and *smooches* to you! (in chat room parlance).
>Can we can call you "deelish" for short?
I like, I like. You may, indeed!
Until next time, take care.
dls
>Well, in short, the intellectual and ethical commitment to socialism is
>what allows (or requires) me to *not* limit myself to *p*olitics (as
>opposed to *P*olitics). Or in other words I don t think struggles over any
>instance of lower case *p*olitics can be "won" or even addressed without
>winning and tackling them all. Which amounts to having or performing an
>upper case *P*olitics.
This exact issue was a source of *tremendous* tension in a seminar
I participated in recently. As I see it, the issue is constituted by a
number of rather
knotty problems. Despite the tenor of my last few posts, I am
very ambivalent about the macro-micro, (P/p)olitics issue. I've chosen to
err on the side of micropolitics, because it *seems* to me to have more
potential immediate effects, *seems* to generate less potential negative
unintended consequences, and *seems* to honor the ability of people to make
decisions for themselves. Moreover, it seems to me that Foucault's
ascending conception of power suggests that altering power relations at
multiple local sites, while more gradual, should have macro-structural
effects eventually.
Nevertheless, even though I've chosen the path of micropolitics, I can't get
rid of the feeling that I'm ignoring things I shouldn't be. Perhaps
it is this sense of "guilt" that prompts me to respond the way I do
sometimes when I engage someone such as yourself, who doesn't seem to mind
engaging in Politics.
{Confession over}
>>Hugs and kisses!
>>
>>deliciously liminal subjectivities
>Now *this* is funny! LOL and *smooches* to you! (in chat room parlance).
>Can we can call you "deelish" for short?
I like, I like. You may, indeed!
Until next time, take care.
dls